I can sing a copyrighted song in public, as long as I am not making money off of it. Would you really be for criminalizing that?

How is it weird? It's literally against the law already. Everyone except the copyright holder has to pay a licensing fee to do so. It's clause #5 in
Section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code (which is over the exclusive rights of a copyright holder):

Exclusive rights of the copyright owner (section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code):

1. To reproduce the work

2. To prepare derivative works

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
work publicly

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly

6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

I can sing a copyrighted song in public, as long as I am not making money off of it. Would you really be for criminalizing that?

How is it weird? It's literally against the law already. Everyone except the copyright holder has to pay a licensing fee to do so. It's clause #5 in
Section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code (which is over the exclusive rights of a copyright holder):

Exclusive rights of the copyright owner (section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code):

1. To reproduce the work

2. To prepare derivative works

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
work publicly

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly

6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

So you go by what you think is the law and I take the actual law into account. Got it.

You actually think singing a tune walking down the street is illegal?

Wow!

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect
commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers,
if--

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights.

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

But his contract said the employer could fire him for anything they wanted. That's one of the side effects of at will employment. The only political
speech you can safely make, is that which your employer approves of.

The singing in public issue still isn't set because it was just settled last year in the Warner Brothers "Happy Birthday" case. But even then, that's
only because the song was declared public domain & that Warner Bros didn't have the rights to the song, only to specific recordings of the song.

As for my original point before the tangent, there are still many legal restrictions on freedom of speech. You even said you agreed with restrictions
when there is violence involved in this post (HERE):

But the answer is quite simple, as long as someone is not threatening violence, they should be allowed to speak.

Inciting a riot is already a legal limit to free speech, it clearly involves violence or the threat of violence, and both of those were involved in
the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The guy in the OP who resigned was actively participating in the rally that incited the violence. So
why should we defend his "freedom of speech" again?

The singing in public issue still isn't set because it was just settled last year in the Warner Brothers "Happy Birthday" case. But even then, that's
only because the song was declared public domain & that Warner Bros didn't have the rights to the song, only to specific recordings of the song.

As for my original point before the tangent, there are still many legal restrictions on freedom of speech. You even said you agreed with restrictions
when there is violence involved in this post (HERE):

But the answer is quite simple, as long as someone is not threatening violence, they should be allowed to speak.

Inciting a riot is already a legal limit to free speech, it clearly involves violence or the threat of violence, and both of those were involved in
the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The guy in the OP who resigned was actively participating in the rally that incited the violence. So
why should we defend his "freedom of speech" again?

I will fully admit I didn't here all of what was being said at that rally.

I am in total agreement with you that if a speaker was inciting violence, it was not protected speech and he or she should have been arrested.

Do you have a link that shows what was said that was an incitement of violence?

Sweet. Now lets move on and expose all the secret radical muslims who posed with an Daesh flag next and get rid of them as well. Fair is fair. Wow
this is so easy. Doxxing people i don't like is so much fun. Sorry to say this but some people are turning exactly into what they despise. Good luck
when the tables are turned.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
It disgusts me that those who call themselves the left are happy to rekindle such a vile practice.

Lol "rekindle such a vile practice"? You make it sound like at will employment was going out the door until this employer just decided to invoke it to
kick out a nazi and furthermore you appear to be blaming all of the left for this guy getting fired. You really need to slow your roll and go
deny some ignorance.

No, Top Dog didn't invoke any legal rights to discriminate/retaliate against Cole White for attending the Charlottesville protest. They had no legal
right even discussing his presence with him, and if they encouraged him to resign by threatening any retaliation -- if he didn't voluntarily resign --
then Cole White may have a valid civil lawsuit called a 'Tameny Claim.'

Contrary to what you, and most ATSers seem to believe, an employer cannot fire/retaliate against an employee for an illegal reason.

In California, employers do not have the right to fire an employee for attending a political protest on their own time:

Unlike many state and federal employees, most employees in America working for private employers do not have any legal protection against
discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity. (A public employer can, under certain circumstances, be prevented from firing
someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech.) Only a mere handful of states
(California, New York, and Washington, DC) have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee's political activity
or affiliation, while two more states (Colorado and North Dakota) prohibit discrimination on the basis of "lawful conduct outside of
work."

Yet they fired him anyways. I'm going to side with the employer on this one, and unless he actually faces legal consequences I'd be willing to bet
things aren't as simple as you think they are with this firing and that is why it's ok. Have at it though. Reach out to this guy and be his internet
lawyer since you like telling people what is legal and illegal so much.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.